On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:09:59AM -0500, Galen Charlton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > IMO this belongs in a separate module, not in MARC::Batch or
> > MARC::Record. Small pieces, loosely joined!
>
> MARC::Record and MARC::Batch are frameworks that in
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Smith,Devon wrote:
>> I think it's a mistake to get hung up on the leader being "next to" the
>> fields or the indicators being "next to" the subfields. The leader and
>> indicators aren't really d
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Smith,Devon wrote:
> I think it's a mistake to get hung up on the leader being "next to" the
> fields or the indicators being "next to" the subfields. The leader and
> indicators aren't really different than fields and subfields. They were
> given special tre
On 1/18/11 10:15 AM, "Smith,Devon" wrote:
But other than that, 6 of one, half dozen of another ...
Agreed. I don't see where any of these are a ton better than others, with the
caveat that there's already code in ruby-marc, marc4j, and PHP's FIle_MARC for
the marc-in-json and some of us are us
I think it's a mistake to get hung up on the leader being "next to" the
fields or the indicators being "next to" the subfields. The leader and
indicators aren't really different than fields and subfields. They were
given special treatment in ISO 2709 due to the limitations of ISO 2709.
If we're mov
I like the fact that it's slightly less verbose, but am put off by the fact
that it mixes different semantic entities in the same arrays. The leader is
"next to" the fields; the indicators are "next to" the subfields. E.g., in the
variable field:
{ "010" :
[
{ "ind1": " " },
{ "i
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Brad Baxter wrote:
> that those algorithms might be the basis for a similar JSON library.
I meant, javascript library.
When I wrote Data::Pairs (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Data-Pairs/), I had
JSONified MARC in mind. To my mind, a data structure that is a "Pairs
of Pairs"[2] would faithfully represent a MARC record, including preserving
the orders of fields/subfields.
Below is the short example from [1] displayed
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> IMO this belongs in a separate module, not in MARC::Batch or
> MARC::Record. Small pieces, loosely joined!
MARC::Record and MARC::Batch are frameworks that invoke
MARC::File::USMARC (and MARC::File::JSON and MARC::File::XML). It is
alr
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:01:53AM -0500, Galen Charlton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Dueber, William wrote:
> > Note that as of this point, the marc-in-json spec goes as high as the
> > Record object. A set of records could be represented by, say, the obvious
> > JSON-array
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Dueber, William wrote:
> Note that as of this point, the marc-in-json spec goes as high as the
> Record object. A set of records could be represented by, say, the obvious
> JSON-array of Record objects (which may necessitate a JSON pull-parser if
> you’ve got
11 matches
Mail list logo
